There were particular points made by the British Prime Minister in his
speech of I5th December. In the first instance., he stressed that it was
Poland who should " make the great gift to Russia "—it was preposterous,
however to ask and difficult to visualise any nation being willing to con-
demn one-third of her population to misery or death., and cut off half her
territory as a c gift5 for a great Power. It was a repetition of the language
of Munich . . . Just before the partition of Czecho-Slovakia., both the
French and the British Government had., with extraordinary hypocrisy,
written in their proposition of i8th September 1938, to Prague that they
" recognised how great is the sacrifice . . . required of the Czecho-Siovak
Government in the cause of peace ... " and "because that cause is common,
both to Europe and in particular to Czechoslovakia herself, etc. . . . "
M. Grabski, that politician whom the British Prime Minister warmly
referred to as " an able colleague of M. Mikolajczyk," wrote :
" The practice of the Soviet Government in the area of Eastern Poland,
which it has occupied from September 1939 to June 1941, leaves no room
for doubt that if the present territorial demands of the U.S.S.R. were to be
fulfilled, it would be the equivalent to surrendering more than four million
Poles (and twice as many other nationalities) who were left in the Eastern
provinces of Poland after the deportation, to a most ruthless extermination.
If the Polish Nation agreed to that, in truth it would not deserve to survive.'5*
Muscovy-Russia had increased her territories fifty times over since the
15th century by acquiring £ gifts ' of this type from her neighbours ; but
as the Poles were aware from their history, she could not be satiated . . .
Sections of the Polish Commonwealth which had never previously belonged
to her, had been * acquired ' in 1494, 1648, 1667, 1770, 1772, 1793 and in
1795 and 1815, and yet again in 1920, and at every opportunity she had
claimed the lands stretching further westward into Poland.
The second point in Churchill's speech, difficult for any member of
the Western world to swallow, was his acceptance of that Asiatic custom
of compulsorily transferring masses of population, which Moscow had
proceeded to carry out in its hysteria of cleaning-up the frontier zone.
This migration madness of the Kremlin's overlord was warmly endorsed
and praised by the British Premier as the panacea of all Polish problems.
The Roman law, that the soil belonged to the people who toil on it and
that man belongs to his country., had been adhered to throughout the two
thousand years of the Christian era; and therein lay that essential differ-
ence between the Western world and the Asiatic nomads. It was a
remarkable phenomenon to watch the Prime Minister of Britain, the
strongest representative of the Western World, supporting this Asiatic
conception of a State and the individual, so utterly alien to his world.
In a four-hour Debate, Parliament confirmed that the future of world
peace and Britain's position in Europe, depended on the solution of the
Polish-Russian question. Churchill's policy from 22nd June, 1941,
* The Polish-Soviet Frontier > London, 1943.